BunnyAnomaly

I've updated it so anyone can view it... please don't mess with the formula else I'll have to reupload

Much appreciated for the link, that's very very handy je_saist!

Scrapper is definitely the way to go for Fire/ or Elec/ because of the highest base damage and greater benefit that multipliers have on that.

All three of those are great combinations. I'm particularly fond of SS/anything

I felt this deserved its own thread. The other had far too many points raised for this singular issue to be tackled and dealt with once and for all. Please keep this subject on topic as much as possible, though I know it's remarkably easy to stray on an internet forum and end off in the woods somewhere.

I typically only bother writing very short posts because the point is easily lost in an essay. Inevitably our audience is internet forum goers and so the attention span is naturally short. I know mine is. However given the amount of back and forth, and incorrect information, I have decided I simply must put a considerable amount more effort into this to finally 'close the case'.

The Myth

That when defence is added to a character, it is more valuable to a character near the soft cap than to a character who is at 0%.

The Origins of the Myth

In short, some bad maths, some troublesome semantics, and some analytical tools used that cause numerous amounts of confusion, which unfortunately have been repeated until it has become a 'truth' of the forum.

The origins arise from the fact that increasing defence gives exponential rises to survivability. This is not a point of contention. The problem lies in the semantics and then the further interpretation into other fields. The original thread which brought this to a head was one which compared an option of having either more regeneration or more defence.

What arose was the argument that the answer would be different depending on the initial defence. This comes from the Myth that it is more useful at or near the cap than at 0%.

What I will provide is a spreadsheet that categorically dispels this myth.

Some final disclaimers before I begin. More defence is always better, up to the cap. Defence provides an exponential boost to survivability. However, this is not some kind of inherent property of defence, but rather an inherent property of mitigation - the protection provided. All kinds of additional mitigation provides exponential benefits to survivability.

How do you compare choices?

The answer is simple: by the mitigation it provides.

An option that provides greater mitigation is the one that is to be chosen.

Why this can be muddled is that different forms of mitigation are applied in different ways.

Defence & Resistance, for instance, are dynamic, and their value is dependent on the damage you will face.

Regeneration is static, a constant amount of effective mitigation regardless of incoming damage.

For the mathematically inclined, it is of interest to note that having a high Resistance actually devalues adding additional Defence, because it inherently decreases the incoming damage by which Defence determines its value.

The Evidence

Here is the spreadsheet.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...zUVFnQ3c&hl=en

First of all take some time to examine what is actually written. Realise that it does not consider some extremely difficult to quantify situations such as potential debuffs to your stats, or your ability to actively mitigate damage via kiting, active crowd control, or jousting. It boils the situation down to a few key variables. Hopefully you choose to play with these variable to gather a better understanding of their interactions. By doing so you will reach a number of simple conclusions.

The only initial variable important is your initial resistance. Not your initial health, defence, or regeneration rate, contrary to how you might initially think.

The other important variables are by how much you wish to increase defence and regeneration. These two are the options you have.

The spreadsheet is initially set up with some generic numbers already in. Once again, to appreciate what I have done, please do spend some time to play with these numbers, else you will not understand the significance.

I have completed the spreadsheet quite quickly; it's possible there are errors. Please bring these to my attention and I will correct any. I believe the maths is sound but typos are almost my middle name

One final important point to note when playing with the spreadsheet: The indifference point. The point of indifference is an economic term for when two options are equal in utility to you. In simple terms, it's when you don't care, or are indifferent, to the options. When you change the fundamental terms that decide the model, the indifference point is calculated automatically.

This allows you to test the spreadsheet. By increasing DPS above the point of indifference, you will discover that defence provides better survivability. By lowering DPS beloow the point of indifference, you will find regeneration provides better survivability.

The indifference point is the solution to a question that asks which is better: regeneration or defence.

Please do spend some time playing with the model first before replying. It is much easier to see with your own eyes that the initial defence does not change the decision than it is to explain with long winded mathematics and counter-points that are tangents to the issue.

Thank you and good luck.

-special thanks to je_saist for getting me the google docs link so anyone can open and browse it easily.

The answer is likely to change depending on how much you invest into it. I'd say Willpower probably is more survivable just "off the bat" but they are very similar with the same kind of IO investment.

Willpower has an advantage very noticeably against Psychic damage that Invulnerability really doesn't have answers for. It has a heal but there's not much else going for it.

Invulnerability has a stronger taunt aura. If you are going to play Willpower and want to hold aggro, you'll need Taunt and you'll need a good few AOE attacks. With those you should be okay.

Willpower used to start off much easier with Quick Recovery, but now everyone has Stamina at level 2 this doesn't count for as much any more.

Both I would say are great powersets and are fantastic choices.

Here's another example of why "100% survival" is not good information on which to make a decision.

You can go from 40->45% defence, and gain 100% survival.

You can go from 0-25% defence, and gain 100% survival.

The problem is that the first example will save your life 5 times in 100. The second will save your life 25 times in 100. The second is 5x better at saving your life. But they both are attributed this useless metric of "100% survival improvement".

And still no answer.

To say that you have increasing survivability when defence goes up says nothing about whether it's better than defence. I have total agreement that this is the case. My point is that it is an exceptionally difficult metric to use.

Why is that so?

Because to decide, which is the point of this thread, between two choices, you're now going to have to graph regeneration on the same graph. Now other than it being rife with all kinds of experimental errors it also takes an eternity. Oh, and then you're STILL not able to solve the question without adding in your own numbers.

Or you could just determine which mitigates more and do that.

Werner has already admitted my method is correct. Compare what each mitigates, pick the one that mitigates the most.

You can't tell the OP which is better. Instead you ran a useless test that examined only your own survivability vs defence. Not only did your test in any way do anything to do with the numbers provided, they used your own. All they did was test your defence.

You have done absolutely no calculation to determine if the regen was better than the defence.

So you're wondering why you are taking an eternity to defeat a Rikti Boss with only using Air Superiority, just one attack, and you have 1 damage enhancement in it.